It is legal, sadfully, IMO. If it was in North Korea, it wouldn't be, per US
On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 5/12/06, Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com>
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> Anyone know if they use the actual content from Wikipedia or not?
> If they are and they aren't citing authors, aren't they in breach of
And if that's the case, can we sue? Please?
Please, let's not. I see it as a good thing that people can access and
Wikipedia articles in some way, whether or not the site is
GFDL-compliant. Isn't that why we contribute our time here, to have people
read our articles? The most basic freedom for information is the freedom to
access and read it. Baidupedia is better than nothing for
technically-unsavvy people in mainland China.
First of all, I'm not the one who wrote those sentences your email
client attributed to me.
Secondly, I tend to agree with you that suing over a breach of the
GFDL is not a good idea. And frankly, I doubt it would work.
Whether or not a grossly censored Baidupedia is better than nothing, I
don't know. Depends, I suppose, how censored it is, but I get the
impression that the censorship is much tighter than say the censorship
of Google. From what I know of the situation I'd guess a censored
version of Wikipedia is worse than nothing, because at least with
nothing more people will go through the technical hoops to get around
If anyone has any ideas as to what we can do to help get the real
Wikipedia to the masses in China (no client-side setup required), I'd
love to help. Maybe some sort of network of distributed servers
providing https access through dynamically rotating IP addresses.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.